alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Milton Frank, Defendant.*

County Court, Dutchess County,

February 4, 1971.

*Peter L. Maroulis*for defendant. *Albert M. Rosenblatt, District Attorney (James V. Brands*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*

 Name used herein is fictitious for purpose of publication.

Raymond E. Aldrich, Jr., J.

Defendant Milton Frank moves by notice of motion, supporting affidavit of his attorney and numerous exhibits for an order (a) granting him, leave to inspect the minutes of the Dutchess County Grand Jury which indicted him on June 3, 1969 in three-count Indictment No. 60/69 for the commission of certain crimes involving a dangerous drug and possession of an implement adapted for the administering of a narcotic drug, and (b) dismissing the indict*489ment thus returned against him, and (c) for such other and further relief as to this court may seem just and proper, such motion for the aforesaid three reliefs being brought upon the eight enumerated grounds set forth in the notice of motion.

The court has examined the minutes of the Grand Jury *(People*v. *Howell,*3 N Y 2d 672), as is proper in a motion to inspect, and from such examination the court finds that the indictment is predicated upon insufficient legal evidence in the record to warrant a conviction of the defendant for the crimes charged.

The record before the Grand Jury was devoid of sufficient legal proof to establish that the defendant possessed a dangerous drug or an implement adapted to administer the same, since the corpus of the alleged crimes, namely, the purported canabis, stimulant and depressant drug, and implement, was not received in evidence, or even offered in evidence.

This court believes that the nature of the crimes alleged in this indictment requires the introduction into evidence of a legally acceptable chemical analysis of the corpus of the crime (Code Crim. Pro., § 248), as well as the receipt in evidence of the corpus itself, in order to establish a chain of evidence linking the defendant to the crime.

An indictment must be founded upon legal evidence (Code Crim. Pro., § 249), and since such evidence against Milton Frank is insufficient for the reasons aforesaid, the indictment will be dismissed in the inherent power of the court; however, the court grants leave to the District Attorney to resubmit the case to the same or another Grand Jury for proper proof of the corpus of the alleged crimes.

For the foregoing reasons, the indictment is dismissed in accordance with this decision.
#### State v. Medeiros

17307

1/9/96

Denied
27058

#### Jou v. Schmidt

Affirmed
24811

#### State v. Street

Affirmed
#### Llewellyn v. Llewellyn

26366

06/30/2005

Affirmed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Domenick Vitalo, Appellant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

June 23, 1959.

*Albert G. Bottieri*and *Alexander Grasso*for appellant.

*Morris Marshall Cohn, District Attorney (W. Albert De Matteo*of counsel), for respondent.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

This court has carefully reviewed the information, the wire-tap order, the testimony, the evidence, the newspaper item, the motions made during the trial, the remarks of the Assistant District Attorney, and has listened attentively to the arguments of counsel both on the original appeal and on the motion for reargument. In addition, the court has again examined the points of law raised in the defendant’s brief.

A re-examination and a review by this court indicates that there is no reason to disturb the decision of this court dated February 25, 1959 *(People*v. Vitalo, 15 Misc 2d 868) and the order entered therein. The sentence imposed upon this defendant, while longer than that imposed by some courts for similar offenses and the fine imposed are not excessive, nor out of line when the past record of this defendant is taken into consideration.

Based upon the record herein and the probation report, there is no convincing reason advanced to reverse the conviction or to modify the sentence of the defendant herein. '

Judgment of conviction is affirmed. Submit order accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 373 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 373

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 
for Congress to have the power to implement and enforce limits on when 
   money can be spent on campaign activities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2015

Mr. Nolan submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 
for Congress to have the power to implement and enforce limits on when 
   money can be spent on campaign activities, and for other purposes.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. LIMITING THE CAMPAIGN SEASON.

    It is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
            (1) Congress should have the power to implement and enforce 
        limits on when money can be spent on campaign activities;
            (2) registered candidates for Congressional elections 
        should not be allowed to expend campaign funds on advertising 
        more than 60 days before a primary or general election;
            (3) candidates for Congressional office, both incumbents 
        and challengers, should not be allowed to solicit or collect 
        campaign contributions during the hours in which Congress is in 
        session; and
            (4) States should create a single Congressional primary 
        date to increase voter education and participation.
                                 <all>
```
#### Doe, In re

22698

10/11/2000

Vacated and Remanded
### -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/29 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report
of American Media Operations, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, David Pecker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Mark Brockelman, Chief Accounting Officer of
the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ DAVID J. PECKERDavid J. PeckerChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)/s/ MARK J. BROCKELMANMark J. BrockelmanVice PresidentChief Accounting Officer(principal financial officer)




Date: June 29, 2005



This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will
not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                        American Media Operations, Inc.

                      190 Congress Park Drive - Suite 200
                            Delray Beach, FL 33445

              LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                 June 14, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, American
Media Operations, Inc. has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur
Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the March 25, 2002 audit was subject to
their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to
provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to
this audit.

                                    Very truly yours,
                                    American Media Operations, Inc.

                                    /s/ John Miley
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                      64
#### Shaw, Appellant, *v.*Griswold, Appellee.

(No. 31800

Decided June 15, 1949.)

*Miss Jane Meyers Sutter*and *Mr. Harry B. Kirtland,*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996        
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         245,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  386,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               631,552
<PP&E>                                       7,573,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                 506,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,396,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,444,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    761,935
<COMMON>                                     5,569,181
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,433,080)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,396,544
<SALES>                                        275,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,148
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               794,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             139,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (640,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (640,814)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (640,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00096

- CV

Jason E. Haddock

v.

Texas Workforce Commission and

Adecco USA Inc. §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 1

o f Tarrant County (2011

- 002 290

- 1 )

October 17, 2013

Opinion by Justice McCoy



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Jason E. Haddock shall pay all costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Bob McCoy
#### State v. Gaoiran

17119

10/17/96

Reversed in part and Affirmed
#### State v. Siamani.

28495

05/16/2008

Reversed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAY-31-1998                  MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            DEC-01-1997                  JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              FEB-28-1998                  FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                              0                        7,073
<SECURITIES>                                        0                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0                       91,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                        9,553
<INVENTORY>                                         0                       27,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0                      137,383
<PP&E>                                              0                       24,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0                       11,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0                      528,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0                       44,641
<BONDS>                                             0                       87,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                            0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                            0
<COMMON>                                            0                          259
<OTHER-SE>                                          0                      375,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0                      528,968
<SALES>                                       129,715                      371,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              129,715                      371,230
<CGS>                                          67,960                      193,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 116,058                      335,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                2,443                        6,947
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,603                        5,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,325                       31,106
<INCOME-TAX>                                    5,653                       14,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             6,672                       16,788
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                            0
<CHANGES>                                           0                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    6,672                       16,788
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.26                         0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.25                         0.64
        



</TABLE>
10240

#### State v. Gerke

Dismissed
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20837

Conference Calender

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEBORAH HOFFMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR H-96-39-2

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Deborah Hoffman has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief, Hoffman’s response, and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issues. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 
No.

- 2 -
Exhibit 3.13

                            CAREMATRIX CORPORATION
                          AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO BY-LAWS
                        Pursuant to Director Action by
               Written Consent Dated Effective October 4, 1996

Article III of the By-laws of the Company is hereby amended as follows:

   (a) by striking out Section 3.1 in its entirety and substituting in lieu
thereof a new Section 3.1 to read as follows:

       Section 3.1. Enumeration. The officers shall consist of a chairman of the
       board of directors, a chief executive officer, a president, a treasurer,
       a secretary and such other officers and agents (including a vice chairman
       of the board of directors and one or more senior vice-presidents,
       executive vice presidents, vice-presidents, assistant treasurers and
       assistant secretaries), as the Board of Directors may, in their
       discretion, determine.

   (b) by striking out Section 3.2 in its entirety and substituting in lieu
thereof a new Section 3.2 to read as follows:

       Section 3.2. Election. The chairman of the board, chief executive
       officer, president, treasurer and secretary shall be elected annually by
       the directors at their first meeting following the annual meeting of the
       stockholders or any special meeting held in lieu of the annual meeting.
       Other officers may be chosen by the directors at such meeting or at any
       other meeting.

   (c) by renumbering the current Sections 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 as
3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, respectively, and by inserting a new Section
3.9 to read as follows:

       Section 3.9. Chief Executive Officer. Except as otherwise provided by the
       board, the chief executive officer shall have such duties and powers as
       are commonly incident to the office and such duties and powers as the
       board of directors shall from time to time designate.

   (d) by deleting the first sentence of Section 3.10 (formerly Section 3.9)
concerning the office of President.
Exhibit 32


    Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                             Pursuant to Section 906
           of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

     The undersigned, the Interim Chief Executive Officer and the Interim Chief
Financial Officer of InfoNow Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September
          30, 2005, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                           /s/ Harry R. Herbst
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Harry R. Herbst
                                           Interim Chief Executive Officer
                                           November 14, 2005


                                           /s/ James L. Medina
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           James L. Medina
                                           Interim Chief Financial Officer
                                           November 14, 2005
February 12, 2002

23420

#### Boharski v. State

Affirmed
,

Appellant/Plaintiff

vs.

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,

a Unit of the Montana University

System & Subdivision of the State of

Montana,

Appellee/Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

Appellant/Plaintiff Ryan Jones has moved the Court, pursuant to Mont. R.

App. P. 26(2), for a second 30-day extension from April 10, 2020, up to and

including May 11, 2020, in which to file his opening brief in this matter. It is

supported by the affidavit of counsel. Appellee, Montana State University, does

not oppose the motion.

Pursuant to the authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), and good

cause having been shown, Appellant, Ryan Jones, is given an extension of time up

to and including May 11, 2020, to file his opening brief.

DATED this day of April, 2020.

Supreme Court Justice

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 6 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF CNL INCOME FUND XII, LTD. AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND ITS STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO THE FORM 10-Q OF CNL INCOME FUND XII, LTD. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,629,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                       205
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      22,070,767
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,035,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,493,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,250,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,493,344
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,044,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  657,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,728,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,728,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,728,112
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE NATURE OF ITS INDUSTRY, CNL INCOME FUND XII, LTD. HAS AN
UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, NO VALUES ARE SHOWN ABOVE FOR CURRENT
ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES.
</FN>


</TABLE>